no title

Other viewpoints

About our Editorials

Dispatch editorials express the view of the
Dispatch editorial board, which is made up of the publisher, the president of
The Dispatch, the editor and the editorial-writing staff. As is the traditional newspaper
practice, the editorials are unsigned and intended to be seen as the voice of the newspaper.
Comments and questions should be directed to the
editorial page editor.

Also in Opinion

Subscribe to The Dispatch

Already a subscriber?
Enroll in EZPay and get a free gift!
Enroll now.

Tuesday November 6, 2012 5:28 AM

• NEWS REPORTING about the Sept. 11 assault on the U.S. mission in Benghazi,
Libya, has moved from the political and mostly pointless issue of when the Obama administration had
publicly acknowledged that a terrorist attack had taken place to more essential questions: Why was
there a security failure at the consulate, and how did U.S. forces in Libya and outside the country
respond to the emergency?

The result is a host of unanswered questions.

Following a single background briefing, the State Department has mostly refused to respond to
inquiries about Benghazi, citing an ongoing investigation by a review board. But considerable
evidence has emerged that Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who died in the attack, and his security
staff were deeply concerned about what they considered to be inadequate security. Fox News reported
this week that a secret cable described an Aug. 15 “emergency meeting” at the consulate, during
which the State Department’s regional security officer “expressed concerns with the ability to
defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures,
weapons capabilities, host-nation support and the overall size of the compound.”

Fox’s aggressive reporting, though undercut by blustery and often scurrilous commentary,
nevertheless seems to have prompted the CIA and Pentagon to provide reporters with their accounts
of Sept. 11 — even as the State Department and the White House insist that all should await the
official investigation results.

The Pentagon and CIA accounts describe a reaction to the attack that, while inadequate, was the
best that could be mustered. Even if so, that leaves the question of why the various agencies were
not better prepared for such an emergency, given the clear warnings. Did the Obama administration’s
political preoccupation with maintaining a light footprint in Libya lead to an ill-considered
reliance on local militias, rather than on U.S. forces? Given the region’s instability, why were no
military rapid-reaction assets — such as Special Forces or armed drones — within reach of Northern
Africa?

While the agencies separately defend themselves — or not — the White House appears determined to
put off any serious discussion of Benghazi until after the election. Sooner or later, however, the
administration must answer questions about what increasingly looks like a major security failure —
and about the policies that led to it. —
The Washington Post